US: Most energy resources in the world and most incoherent energy policy

posted at 4:00 pm on March 26, 2011 by Bruce McQuain

As Peter Glover says, writing in the Energy Tribune, this ought to be the lead story in every American paper and on every American news show. But it’s overshadowed by Japan, Libya and other developments in the world.

America’s combined energy resources are, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CSR), the largest on earth. They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined – and that’s without including America’s shale oil deposits and, in the future, the potentially astronomic impact of methane hydrates.

The US and Russia are the two most resource rich countries in the world. Here’s the chart that shows how huge our advantage is:

Note it says “Oil Equivalent” on the left side. That’s because it includes coal. Yeah, that icky, nasty stuff that we’re trying to ban or make it supremely expensive to use.

The CRS estimates US recoverable coal reserves at around 262 billion tons (not including further massive, difficult to access, Alaskan reserves). Given the US consumes around 1.2 billion tons a year, that’s a couple of centuries of coal use, at least.

In fact, the US has 28% of the world’s coal.

Natural gas?

In 2009 the CRS upped its 2006 estimate of America’s enormous natural gas deposits by 25 percent to around 2,047 trillion cubic feet, a conservative figure given the expanding shale gas revolution. At current rates of use that’s enough for around 100 years. Then there is still the, as yet largely publicly untold, story of methane hydrates to consider, a resource which the CRS reports alludes to as “immense…possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels.” According to the Inhofe’s EPW, “For perspective, if just 3 percent of this resource can be commercialized … at current rates of consumption, that level of supply would be enough to provide America’s natural gas for more than 400 years.”

So, the possibility of 400 years worth of NG, a couple hundred years worth of coal – but what about oil?

Well shucks, seems we have the potential to be quite free of foreign oil, doesn’t it?

While the US is often depicted as having only a tiny minority of the world’s oil reserves at around 28 billion barrels (based on the somewhat misleading figure of ‘proven reserves’) according to the CRS in reality it has around 163 billion barrels. As Inhofe’s EPW press release comments, “That’s enough oil to maintain America’s current rates of production and replace imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years”

Of course that all assumes we do something about taking advantage of the resources we have and actually putting ourselves in a position where we’re not at the mercy of foreign sources of the same sorts of products.

Obviously and hopefully, we’ll come up with affordable and available renewable energy products while we’re doing that.

However, we have no coherent energy plan from this administration. Instead it seems to have gone to war with the oil industry and is doing everything it can to slow its ability to find and exploit these resources. 19,000 jobs and 1.1 billion in earnings have been lost since the imposition of the administration’s moratorium. Both former Presidents Bush and Clinton have spoken out against the delays. And the administration remains in contempt of a court order which ordered them to speed up the permitting process. As a result the EIA has estimated a loss of 74,000 barrels a day of production due to the moratorium this year.

Meanwhile US energy policy persists in pursuing the myth that renewables are the economically viable future, with fossil fuels already, as the president said in January, “yesterday’s energy”. With 85 percent of global energy set to come from fossil fuels till at least 2035 no matter what wishful thinkers may prefer, current US energy policy – much like European – is pure political pantomime.

Couldn’t agree more. We sit on a veritable treasure trove of natural resources which could actually make us energy independent and we have an administration which is doing everything in its power to not just keep us dependent on foreign oil, but to increase our dependence.

No, there is a coherence to it. They want high fuel prices to make it expensive to live in the suburbs and have a car.

The burbs not only offend their environmental religious beliefs, but also the burbs allow such a concentration of voters that the burbs get congressional districts that are often homogenous (and vote GOP). Shifts to city population would alter both state and federal legislative balances of power. If people had to move back to the cities, their votes would be more mixed in the “diverse” districts, and less likely to be solid GOP.

In the city, people would rely more on public transportation (and as George Will noted, socialists love trains because trains allow them to control people’s movements.

Living in the suburbs means the burbs get the property tax money, too. If people moved back to the cities, the property taxes would go in the treasuries of big city mayors (often Dem), and the crumbling cities need not only the property taxes to feed the teachers’ unions, but the city wage taxes to feed the other public sector unions.

As Peter Glover says, writing in the Energy Tribune, this ought to be the lead story in every American paper and on every American news show. But it’s overshadowed by Japan, Libya and other developments in the world.

It’s mostly missing because the reporters are brown from living in Obama’s ars. It has affected their brains. May they suffocate from what they consume.

He went to Brazil to be a salesman and came back a buyer, scrooming the U.S. once more, royally, as he always does. Enjoy, as you wanted him.

Most give him a pass because they’re idiots, from the left to the right.

Start producing our own energy reserves, make more use of natural gas, start turning coal into liquid fuel, and quit using 40% of our corn crop for ethanol, and what would the effect be on our trade deficit? We could not only quit sending money to the Middle East and Venezuela, we could start feeding the rest of the world, at a profit.

Instead, Mr. Bolton said, the party needs a leader to reverse what he called Mr. Obama’s “post-American” presidency, which in his view has marginalized U.S. global leadership and hampered progress on energy independence, international trade and Middle East peace.

“We sit on a veritable treasure trove of natural resources which could actually make us energy independent and we have an administration which is doing everything in its power to not just keep us dependent on foreign oil, but to increase our dependence.”

The Republicans would not only need to have control of all three branches of govenrnment in order to start making effective use of these resources, we’d also need a true Conservative in the White House, who doesn’t buy into the global warming myth.

They want high fuel prices to make it expensive to live in the suburbs and have a car.

Exactly, this is why Obama is pushing for high-speed rail. Who will build this, the unions of course using taxpayers monies. Just like the bridge to nowhere, both parties have been using energy policy at the expense of the taxpayers wallet. We pollute the landscape with behemoth windmills that produce little, insert batteries in cars that employ caustic materials and corkscrew light-bulbs that need EPA 12 step programs to dispose of properly.

All these programs to protect the environment is ruining the environment and raising energy costs. That may seems incoherent, but it’s deliberate.

When food prices start rocketing sky high, expect the rest of the world to get a lot nastier.
All the farm mags I get are predicting wheat prices to go upwards of $13. Right now they’re $8-something.
I’m no farmer, but as a beef producer, I see what that is doing to people.
Fuel costs are going to get so high, people will quit farming unless the govt subsidy gets high enough, which for now, it is.
Here in ND we are spending maybe $300/day when we’re pushing snow with the tractor.
Hay prices will get high. We can’t even really afford to make hay bcs of fuel & equipment upkeep costs.
Scrap metal prices are high. That increases the costs of machinery.
Oh it’s going to get really nasty.

If this comes up in the campaign, Obama will say “But I’ve increased drilling. Its the evil oil companies who aren’t going after the oil.” and the press will say “Yep we’ve increased drilling” and that will be the end of it.

Unless all the Republican candidates, and Congress start making a huge issue of this. Lowering the cost of energy would be like giving everyone a raise. Republicans have to really seize on this and hammer it.

And I just ordered a hundred bucks worth of seeds and plants from Burpee. Gonna plant blueberries this year as we have them every morning on oatmeal. Also beans, eggplant, squash, beets, watermelon and cantelope in addition to the usual tomatoes, spinach, peppers, onions, grapes and apples!

Gonna be busy but not have to mow so much.

With the “Cousin Eddie Clan” in charge it will cost 12.00 just to mow my yard so I’m cuttin back on yard and stockin up on groceries!

Coal to liquids is a simple refining process … invented in the 1920s, called Fischer-Tropsch. Convert coal to natural gas and do what you want with the natural gas. Coal to diesel refines to under $30 a barrel oil equivalent. Gasoline about the same. You can start with natural gas which we are loaded with as well.

But the gasification refining steps make the resultant fuel cleaner since most all the bad stuff associated with oil is removed, particularly sulfur. The Crow Indians want to build a plant, employee the whole reservation — The EPA says no.

Here is one of the world’s first clean coal power plants … higher efficiency, lower cost electricity. China has 5 clean coal power plants under construction. Remember, it’s all Bush’s fault.

If this comes up in the campaign, Obama will say “But I’ve increased drilling. Its the evil oil companies who aren’t going after the oil.” and the press will say “Yep we’ve increased drilling” and that will be the end of it.

Unless all the Republican candidates, and Congress start making a huge issue of this. Lowering the cost of energy would be like giving everyone a raise. Republicans have to really seize on this and hammer it.

Iblis on March 26, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Palin won’t let him get away with that if she runs or doesn’t run. She’ll beat him over the head with real facts and figures.

Everyone should be.
One head of lettuce here in SW ND was going for $3.79.
Yesterday went to Biz & got 2 heads of lettuce for ~$2.25 at Sam’s Club.
Milk here in SW ND is almost $6/gallon.
Sam’s Club it’s still ~$3.20/gal.
It pays for me to drive 100 miles one way to go get groceries.
I can’t even afford to shop in my hometown anymore.
I was milking a cow (not a milk cow) that was in the head gate the other day so I could give it to her baby who was too chilled down to suck.
I was thinking man this stuff tastes good! But $hit’s hard work!
WHY have we been putting dairy farmers out of business in America?!
Why all of this nonsense?
Everything these progressives have done for the last 50 yrs has done nothing but concentrate the food industry.
And it’s going to get worse.

BTW- I’ve said this before folks.
Every town only has ~2-3 days supplies (food, everything) for the local population.
That’s it.
So what happens when fuel gets so outrageous that it costs too much to ship food?
Or what if a disaster even happens?
Everything is so centralized people in need that lived away from the distribution centers would be SOL.
Fuel is needed to make, ship, EVERYTHING we use.
You do not want to go back to subsistence level living AKA romanticized hippie living.
It’s hard work & kills you young.
Me milking that cow the other day by hand was just another reason I realize these minimalists don’t know what in the he!! they’re talking about.
You do not want to live without electricity, medicines, food.
Bcs like it or not, fossil fuels are what powers the combines that help feed the world.
Fossil fuels are what warms you in the winter & cools you in the summer.
Fossil fuels are part of what makes sophisticated modern medical devices like MRIs etc. & it’s also fossil fuels that RUN these things.
You complain about the 3G network?
You’ll never be able to run anything like that without fossil fuels.

Beck, Palin, the blogs, any body notice that it is kind of like the prophets yelling into the wilderness. I have to apologize,,,it is what happens after St Patricks and I am coming down,,there are times that I think I have had visions.

Start producing our own energy reserves, make more use of natural gas, start turning coal into liquid fuel, and quit using 40% of our corn crop for ethanol, and what would the effect be on our trade deficit? We could not only quit sending money to the Middle East and Venezuela, we could start feeding the rest of the world, at a profit.

Nah. Ain’t gonna happen with the current group of clowns in charge.

iurockhead on March 26, 2011 at 4:24 PM

I agree with the bulk of what you say, just wanted to point out that we’re pretty much going to be importing Venezuelan oil no matter how much we produce or like it. Given the global oil market, Venezuela’s ultra heavy crude, and transportation costs it’ll always be cheaper to export our oil to Asia and buy Venezuelan to replace it (we’re doing this even now, we’re the 13th largest oil exporter, around the level of Iraq).

The Obama Admin. gave Brazil BILLIONS to buy their oil but drilling our own is still a big no-no. And for those who say little or none of that oil reaches our gas pumps or that we don’t have the refineries, first, BUILD THE DAMN REFINERIES and second, even if not one drop of that oil comes here, think of all the high paying jobs it would create regardless, all that taxable income for Obama to fund his entitlement utopia and that UNION DUES!!! Why is Obama anti-Union?!?!?

agree with the bulk of what you say, just wanted to point out that we’re pretty much going to be importing Venezuelan oil no matter how much we produce or like it. Given the global oil market, Venezuela’s ultra heavy crude, and transportation costs it’ll always be cheaper to export our oil to Asia and buy Venezuelan to replace it (we’re doing this even now, we’re the 13th largest oil exporter, around the level of Iraq).

jarodea on March 26, 2011 at 6:02 PM

The point is that if we were utilizing our own resources, we could (and should) *choose* to not buy from Venezuela, even if it means exporting less of our own.

Sending money to the ME and Venezuela to buy oil WHEN WE HAVE OUR OWN RESOURCES AND DON’T HAVE TO BUY FROM THEM is simply insane – and suicidal.

Midas,,this is exactly what Big Sis is talking about. This bunch realizes that a possibility of those who are upset with the “voting” option,,will take other measures. They are trying to head it off at the pass They know exactly what they are doing and it will come down to battles in the streets. Look at WI,,look at the UK and what is going on now. I think the die is cast,,,,there will be blood spilled in this country before it is over. And I am not sure who will win?????

Honestly, something has to be done, and voting hasn’t been a viable solution for awhile now.

Midas on March 26, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Voting won’t be a viable solution as long as we continue to base our votes on collective acceptance of an outside narrative. I don’t know if I stop our republic’s decline, but I absolutely will not accept it. Throwing in the towel is the worst thing we can do right now.

And as long as we do not protect our voting system, it will be a joke. I think there is enough vote fraud that has been uncovered nation wide, not just in general elections, but in primaries[go back to Hillbuzz and see how they documented Ds/Obama packing the primaries for O, when it was Hillary’s turn on the D side of the house] How come when vote fraud or suspicious activity is discovered, it is always on the D side of the house,,,,voting is becoming a joke in this country. It is crooked as hell and has been for years,,,even the Iraq’s dip their fingers in die to prove something This country is being stolen,,,what do you do to a thief who is in your house stealing something.

This is the kind of crap that makes want to go crazy. This is so Anti-America, it makes explode. What has happened to common sense in this country?

BTW- I’ve said this before folks.
Every town only has ~2-3 days supplies (food, everything) for the local population.
That’s it.
So what happens when fuel gets so outrageous that it costs too much to ship food?
Or what if a disaster even happens?
Everything is so centralized people in need that lived away from the distribution centers would be SOL.
Badger40 on March 26, 2011 at 5:56 PM

That’s why those people who are agitating for a race war don’t know what can happen to them. Those agitating; Farakhan, Jackson, Sharpton, and Rev. Wright. Did I miss anyone? Yes, I did, the union chiefs.

Me thinks,the Progressives and Environmentalist Wacko’s
that are saturated throughout Obama’s appointments,are
trying to screw-over American taxpayers in their quest
to get rich,through the ruse of “Green Projects”!!!

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

Remember: When Barack Obama, the worst jobs president since the Great Depression, talks about creating jobs, he’s lying through his teeth.

The Obama Adminstration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and radical environmentalists are about to set greenhouse gas standards for American industry.

The new regulations will place heavy administrative burdens on state environmental quality agencies, will be costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs. But Team Obama doesn’t care. They say they have to push the regulations to save the planet from non-existent global warming.

Environmentalists are on President-elect Barack Obama’s side. Twenty-nine environmental and conservation groups recently provided Obama’s transition team with a 391-page plan for federal action on the economic, climate and environmental crises. Their plan coincides with many of Obama’s ideas about creating a green economy, but it’s their knowledge and expertise that will help the new administration overcome some of the challenges it faces. In a teleconference on Nov. 25, leaders from the groups spoke about the plan and the priorities that they believe must be addressed … and fast.

Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters, argued that “The solution to our problems is a new green economy. The last thing you want to do is delay it: It’s not just bad for the planet, it’s bad for the economy.”

While these environmentalists support Obama’s vision, they believe that at the center of his economic recovery strategy needs to be three specific goals: to cut carbon emissions, to create clean energy and to end America’s dependency on oil. In order to accomplish these goals, the group supports the cap and trade system that will put a price on carbon and limit emissions. They also support Obama’s push for clean renewable energy to cut oil dependency and create millions of paying green-collared jobs. And they agree with promoting hybrid cars and other fuel-efficient cars to create ways for Americans to travel further on a gallon of gas.

The detailed plan includes many other ideas to help guide the Obama administration in environmental stewardship, including the restoration of natural resources. But after eight years of environmental neglect, the new administration will have a lot of cleaning up to do. The next four years should definitely be interesting, to say the least.

For more on Obama’s environmental policy, read Obama Addresses Fight Against Climate Change and Obama’s Changing Climate Change. Or share your thoughts or suggestions about how the Obama administration can improve the economy, climate and/or environment in the comment section below.

I’m less than 30 miles from one proposed in eastern SD and every step of the way the enviromentalists fight the thing. They have to have permits on top of permits and eco plans and hardware up the wazzu and still every step of the way the are fought.
The head of EPA or DNR in Iowa fought the clean air permit SD issued.
is been going on for three years and no dirt turned and probably wont be for three more.

I surely hope Sarah is in charge by then because if its a lefty like OBlahBLah or Hillary or a Rino like newt, mitt or huckleberry I fear it will never see the light of day even after millions spent and thousands of hoops jumped through.

The Repubs are as bad as the Dems they have not the will or the balls to fight. Just look at Mccain siding with Kerry to arm AlQeada….every single politician in office over two terms should be voted out (except my Steve King IA)

We need a leader to loosen regulation, to pursue an all of the above energy policy ( not just give it lip service after lockin lips with Nasty Peelosi on the couch over global baloney) to allow the rebuilkding of our energy infrastructure to produce us out of the wnslaving debt that both parties have sold us into.

100 biilion cut out of a 1400 billion DEFICIT for 1 year is no cut at all it is selling us into slavery and the jackass repubs given a mandate by the Tea Party cannot even manage the 100 Billion.

The Tea Party is not dead it is a silent majority and it is reloading, and acquiring the target and in 12 a bunch more lyin, panderin, corrupt, old fools and clowns are goin down!

/Salutes
Do not share all your worries about vote fraud. Yes there is plenty but that’s just what D’rats must do. They have a problem that is “If it ain’t close, they can’t cheat.”

Yeah, Obama packed the caucuses vs. HRC and DNC did their thing. But that was a horse race from Jan 2008. In 2010, that was IMHO demonstrated again. Doesn’t mean Reps can’t run stupid candidates or have LSM nominate them for us. Or use “tactics” , e.g. Alaska Murkowski.

On the candidate part, RNC, Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachman, talk radio and the web are positive efforts. And I do remain positive.

Should riots come, I am prepared. Yeah, old, slow and shaky is no longer accurate but preparation and feisty will insure an expensive contest for my opponents. And old is fearless. What can they do, kill me? Reminder, teh Won has been the best gun and ammo salesman ever. Something like 50M are an awfully large bite.

God bless you, dhunter, I want to buy some of those half full glasses you have. The only problem is that the whole bureaucracy needs to be torn out by the roots[maybe firing everybody] to get rid of the entrenched scum and slime[flamethrowers would be a nice choice].

The only problem is that the whole bureaucracy needs to be torn out by the roots[maybe firing everybody] to get rid of the entrenched scum and slime[flamethrowers would be a nice choice].
retiredeagle on March 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM

I agree! Thats why I believe we must have Sarah, an unafraid warrior and she will give a spine to the Tea Party.

All we need is a leader and some more successes.

If it cannot be done at the ballot box…. I am prepared…. as are many others!

Over 40 states are now “Shall Issue” or “unrestricted” concealed carry states!

An armed populace is a polite populace and an armed populace is the guardian against a tyrannical gov’t.

Too bad, the road ahead would be much easier if we CHOSE to develop and use them now. Maybe after the economic collapse when we enter DOOM world.

I find it hard to believe Canada is so low on the list. I think given our low population density, we’ve just barely scratched the surface of the resources available here. Too bad the country is suicidal, stupid and socialist (also).

The point is that if we were utilizing our own resources, we could (and should) *choose* to not buy from Venezuela, even if it means exporting less of our own.

Sending money to the ME and Venezuela to buy oil WHEN WE HAVE OUR OWN RESOURCES AND DON’T HAVE TO BUY FROM THEM is simply insane – and suicidal.

Midas on March 26, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Then you’re not getting the point, we are always going to be importing oil from Venezuela even if we fully developed all of our oil reserves and became a net exporter. The only way we wouldn’t is if we chose to pay more for oil to not do it, but then we can do that now if we wanted.

I find it hard to believe Canada is so low on the list. I think given our low population density, we’ve just barely scratched the surface of the resources available here. Too bad the country is suicidal, stupid and socialist (also).

Canadian Infidel on March 26, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Looks like it’s a shortage of coal and to a lesser extent natural gas. Canada has a little less oil than the US, 1/4 the natural gas (not sure if that includes Marcellus shale), and 3% as much coal.

Words from Pogo (remember Walt Kelly?) ‘We have met the enemy and he is us.’

Words from Jessie Jackson ‘I am somebody.’

Just a suggestion that as the libs, progressives, communists have attacked America by bits and various groups, patriots can do worse than steal the tactics they stole, first, from us.

That is the genius of the Palin program. She is one of several leaders. Michele Bakhman, Jim DeMint and a few others. Forget all the “candidates” we see on HA or TV. Remember, libs must demonize their opponents; They have no logic. With several leaders, libs become shrill and lose focus.

Talk radio and the web are our communications. Again it is distributed and must be sought.

You’re pretty sure that advocating an energy policy, that is, one energy policy, a national one, a policy imposed by the central government, is something that American conservatives should get behind?

Kralizec on March 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM

The answer is YES.

Drop the word “imposed” as I imagine a policy that gets government out of the way of business, indeed, encourages businesses to invest directly in bringing those disparate sources of energy to market, but also to all of the ancillary businesses that feed into that industry. For instance, we would eliminate the burdensome regulations that discourage and prevent companies from drilling or mining, but also do the same for businesses that supply equipment, like Manitowoc, that builds the giant shovels that mine ore, or Caterpillar, that build the trucks that bring the ore to the plant, ad infinitum.

That is how you create wealth – you mine wealth from the earth with the sweat of your brow.

I do not propose a socialistic response to our problem, nay, I encourage our government to act as a catalyist, a referee… By no means am I suggesting that the government act as a participant.

It should be our GOAL to completely DESTROY the progressive movement – UTTERLY, for it is insatiable in its desire to destroy the American dream.

It should be our GOAL to completely DESTROY the Islamist threat to human liberty – UTTERLY, for it is incompatible with the basic rights of human beings to be free.

It should be our GOAL to be completely self-reliant in terms of ENERGY and FOOD and MANUFACTURED GOODS, because a nation that produces more than it consumes is never beholden to evil forces that wish it harm.

We need to reflect upon the words of our Founders – in the Declaration, in the Constitution, and in the Federalist Papers – to guide us towards that framework that allows men to be free, free of the tyranny of an oppressive government, free of economic tyranny imposed by corporatists feeding upon the teat of a government that itself feeds upon the labors of its citizens.

It can most certainly be done at the ballot box, but our enemies should know that, if push comes to shove, we have other remedies at our disposal – and our enemies should know that we will not allow this nation to fall.PERIOD.

For every stinkin lefty dbag that turns their lights out I’m burnin up ten times what they’d normally use.
Kinda like votin like a Demorat!

My wife had spent 4 bucks a piece for those curly q dam light things and after stumbling around in the dark and goin half blind tryin the read Lee Child novels I finally read what happens if one breaks, ripped all out threw em in the trash and stocked up on a five year supply of incandescents for about ten bucks.

Now every trip to Walmart ends up with 5 dollars worth of incandesants. Gonna sell em on ebay after everyone goes blind or their hair falls out from GE mercury laden rippoffs.

OK greeny weanies tonight from 8:30 – 9:30 its lights out worldwide instigated by the WWF( World Wildlife Federation) for climate change awareness. Well, I say WTF (What The F) I am turnin on everything I’ve got to make up for you weanies who think man is powerful enough to negate that which God has made! LIGHTS ON ALL OF EM! DRIVE BY AND HONK!

It can most certainly be done at the ballot box, but our enemies should know that, if push comes to shove, we have other remedies at our disposal – and our enemies should know that we will not allow this nation to fall. PERIOD.

It should be our GOAL to completely DESTROY the Islamist threat to human liberty – UTTERLY, for it is incompatible with the basic rights of human beings to be free.

It should be our GOAL to be completely self-reliant in terms of ENERGY and FOOD and MANUFACTURED GOODS, because a nation that produces more than it consumes is never beholden to evil forces that wish it harm.

US: Most energy resources in the world and most incoherent energy policy

This is the most embarrassing indictment of a leaderless country this nation has EVER had to endure. And change is coming. “We” the people are not going to sit idly by and let these Al Gore and Michael Moore liberals continue to keep this nation from the right to produce OUR natural resources under the contemptuous name of “green energy”. This fabricated dependence on foreign resources has to come to an end. Period.

It should be our GOAL to completely DESTROY the Islamist threat to human liberty – UTTERLY, for it is incompatible with the basic rights of human beings to be free.

I detect a significant flaw in our founding principles: freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our Republic. What happens when a religion operating under that liberty is destructive of the very state that allows its presence? In a living organism, that scenario is called a disease. Islam is not just a religion, it is an entire political philosophy – a philosophy that is incongruous with Jeffersonian Democracy – they cannot coexist. Islam is a disease upon the American Republic. It is either going to be them, or us. For me, I’m going with We Win, You Lose.

We export a great deal of our national treasure – in terms of dollars expended upon petroleum, dollars spent on national defense and most importantly in terms of blood shed by our men and women in uniform to keep our nation intact and functioning, towards ISLAMIST (and other anti-American) nations that are OPENLY HOSTILE to us and our principles. Shut off the money, shut off the food, shut off the defense. Derive the necessary petroleum domestically and/or from nations that are in concert with us – Canada is a perfect example.

Oil may be fungible, but principles are not. We need to realize that eschewing domestic production is undermining our national security. The answer to that is Drill Here, Drill Now. If these cretins want to wage war against us, burn our flag in their streets and all of the other terroristic endeavors they engage in – fine – they can expect to do so hungry and poor.

It should be our GOAL to be completely self-reliant in terms of ENERGY and FOOD and MANUFACTURED GOODS, because a nation that produces more than it consumes is never beholden to evil forces that wish it harm.

We need to come to the conclusion, as a nation, that buying crap from China is a very bad idea. We have allowed our unions to bid up the price of labor to the point where we no longer produce consumer goods like we used to. True, Mr. McQuain could most likely write a similar piece here at HA describing the incredible manufacturing prowess of the United States, but again, we export our treasure to our own detriment. We have an incredibly large trade deficit and an incredibly large national debt – there is no reason for that to continue. It is government action and union thuggery that have caused this imbalance to occur. We need to rent a couple of roll-off dumpsters, drop them off in Washington and at the union halls, and clean both of the scourges out before the entire house falls down.

You’re pretty sure that advocating an energy policy, that is, one energy policy, a national one, a policy imposed by the central government, is something that American conservatives should get behind?

Kralizec on March 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Yes, in that we will have, in some form, a national energy policy. Even if we replaced all of the current energy legislation and energy regulation infrastructure with a single document that said our policy is to leave it to the states, and the free market! that is a de facto national energy policy.

As long as our policies promote freedom and growth, it’s OK to have policies.

Don’t expect a defense of either George Bushes from me on this topic, nor one of Ronald Reagan in response to the Marine Corps barracks bombing in Beruit in 1983. I admire all three men, but their refusal to point to Islam as an existential threat to the United States and move the nation to a coherent energy policy that put American interests first above all is to their detriment.

Our current dilemma should not be framed in terms of who did what in the past but rather what are we going to do now and who is going to lead us in that direction. That person has to have the credentials on the subject of energy already in place in order to grab the brass ring of a mandate towards a goal of energy independence. There is only one person who has that credential and the forcefulness of personality to move this leviathan of state away from its destruction. It really is just that simple.

The nexus of oil and Islam is toxic to our liberties. We founded our government upon the premise that our rights as human beings come from God and that no government is to step between God and the citizen with respect to these rights. We have the God given resources to power our own economy. We have the God given resources to feed ourselves to overflowing, we have the God given talents to overcome the huge problems that we face.

To paraphrase the foaming at the mouth yoohoos who were recently protesting like a bunch of doofusses up in Madison WI, when it comes to how the Democrats have handled energy resources in this country, “THIS IS WHAT STUPIDITY LOOKS LIKE!”

Perhaps if the Democrats paid less attention to moronic media hog environmental non-experts like Ralph Nader and his collective ilk of idiots, and paid more attention to the science, we would not be dependant on foreign sources of fuel and energy. With the resources we have available to us right now, we could easily cut away from relying on overseas sources and become self-sustaining within a short amount of time, creating more jobs and income for this country in the process.

Instead, thanks to the bulk of Renaissance Dinosaur Democrats still wandering around Washington, we are kept in a virtual stranglehold by countries like Libya and Saudi Arabia.

Only when people in this country finally wake up and see what sort of mess the Democrats have turned America into are you going to finally see some major changes. A good place to start is by opening up the Gulf of Mexico and offshore on both coasts to oil drilling, while telling pseudo-environmental outfits like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace to go have themselves a nice piping hot cup of SHUT THE HELL UP!

For all of that you really didn’t come up with any practical solution other than Drill Here, Drill Now. I agree with ‘Drill Here, Drill Now’, but I don’t see how that alone practically comes close to achieving the goals you set out, except for the energy independence one.